Marcellus Matro Bowles v. State of Florida

2026-08-28

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the judgment of acquittal motion but reversed the cost imposition and remanded for the trial court to enter a corrected order that clearly identifies the basis for all imposed costs.

Marcellus Bowles challenged his conviction for misdemeanor trespass and resisting without violence on two grounds. First, he argued that the trial court wrongly denied his motion for acquittal because the offense date listed in the charging document differed by two days from the date established at trial. Second, he contended that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing $273 in court costs without adequate justification.

The appellate court upheld the conviction, finding that minor date discrepancies between charging documents and trial evidence do not require acquittal when the defendant suffered no prejudice and the crime fell within the statute of limitations. However, the court found merit in Bowles's cost challenge, holding that while a $50 prosecution cost was sufficiently identified through the judge's oral pronouncement, the remaining $223 in court costs lacked adequate explanation in either the written order or oral statement.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a date variance between charging document and trial proof constitutes grounds for acquittal
Whether imposed court costs must be adequately explained for appellate review
Sufficiency of cost identification in trial court orders and pronouncements

Procedural posture

Bowles appealed a conviction for misdemeanor trespass and resisting without violence from Orange County trial court, challenging both the denial of his acquittal motion and the imposition of costs.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 6D2023-3757

Lower Tribunal No. 2023-MM-005588-A-O

MARCELLUS MATRO BOWLES,

Appellant,

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

Appeal from the County Court for Orange County.

Steve Jewett, Judge.

August 28, 2026

GANNAM, J.

Marcellus Bowles appeals the final order of judgment and sentence on a jury

verdict finding him guilty of misdemeanor trespass and resisting without violence.

Bowles argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal,

based on a two-day difference between the offense date alleged in the information

and the offense date proved at trial, and in denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to strike or amend the imposition of $273 in costs,

based on insufficient identification. 1

We affirm the denial of Bowles’s motion for judgment of acquittal. See

Tingley v. State, 549 So. 2d 649, 651 (Fla. 1989) (“[T]ime is not ordinarily a

substantive part of an indictment or information and there may be a variance between

the dates proved at trial and those alleged in the indictment or information as long

as: (1) the crime was committed before the return date of the indictment; (2) the

crime was committed within the applicable statute of limitations; and (3) the

defendant has been neither surprised nor hampered in preparing his defense.”);

Sanchez v. State, 956 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“Here, appellant did

not request a statement of particulars, nor did he object to evidence of the erroneous

date. Further, it was clear at trial that the state was alleging only a single incident.”).

We reverse, however, the imposition of costs. “While no statute or procedural

rule requires a trial court to explain the basis for an imposed cost, due process

requires that it at least be evident from the record” to enable appellate review.

Culbertson v. State, 424 So. 3d 1045, 1045 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025). The trial court’s

order identifies $50 of the challenged costs only as “State,” but the court’s oral

sentence pronouncement identified it as “costs of prosecution,” making the basis for

The motion is deemed denied because the trial court did not rule on it within sixty days. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B).

these costs evident from the record. See § 938.27(8), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“Costs for the

state attorney must be set in all cases at no less than $50 per case when a

misdemeanor . . . offense is charged . . . .”). But the remaining $223 cost amount,

identified in the written order only as “Court Costs,” was likewise only identified in

the court’s oral pronouncement as unspecified “court costs.” Thus, the basis for this

$223 amount is not evident from the record, and we remand for the trial court to

enter a corrected order identifying the bases for all costs imposed. 2 Bowles’s

presence is not required for this ministerial correction. See Irizarry v. State, 425 So.

3d 1190, 1190 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with instructions.

NARDELLA and MIZE, JJ., concur.

Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Caroline Joan S. Picart, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tabitha Mills, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED

The State concedes error on this point.